Gedville v. Mahacek
| Decision Date | 20 June 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 27850,27850 |
| Parties | GEDVILLE v. MAHACEK. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Lashly, Lashly, Miller & Clifford, St. Louis, Oliver J. Miller, St. Louis, for appellant.
Blumenfeld & Abrams, St. Louis, Selden Blumenfeld, St. Louis, for respondent.
WOLFE, Commissioner.
This is a suit for damages arising out of injuries to the plaintiff's person and property. The injuries resulted from a collision between an automobile owned and driven by the plaintiff and a truck owned by the defendant. The defendant sought to recover damages to her truck by way of counterclaim but the jury found for the plaintiff on both his petition and defendant's counterclaim, awarding him damages in the sum of one thousand dollars. Thereafter the plaintiff moved for a new trial stating, among other reasons for the motion, that the verdict was inadequate and further stating that it was 'so inadequate as to show mistake and misunderstanding on the part of the jury with respect to the instruction on the measure of damages requested by plaintiff and given by the court.' On these grounds the court sustained the motion and the defendant appeals.
The collision between the vehicles involved in this suit took place at a road intersection in St. Louis County. The defendant's truck carrying a load of crushed rock ran into the side of plaintiff's automobile as it was crossing the intersection. Since the only assignment of error raised is that the court erred in setting aside the verdict on the ground that it was inadequate we will limit our discussion of the evidence to the question of plaintiff's damages.
On the 22d of May, 1948, plaintiff was driving his automobile with his granddaughter as a passenger when defendant's truck struck the automobile. The plaintiff was rendered unconscious by the collision and was taken to the St. Louis County Hospital. After about three hours there he was sent to his home. A Dr. Moore was called and the patient was then taken to the Marian Hospital where he was confined for seven or eight days.
The plaintiff was a man past middle age who had been engaged in the trades of carpenter work and building for a number of years. Just prior to being injured he had worked for a contractor as a carpenter earning an average weekly wage of $88. He had done no work since his injury up to the time of the trial which was about a year later, except for two or three days' work in December of 1948. He stated that he could no longer hold a hammer because of a weakness in three fingers of the right hand, and that he could do no lifting because of pain and limitation of movement in the left arm. He also stated that he could not raise his left arm to the side above shoulder height.
Dr. Moore testified that when he was first called to see the plaintiff he found him suffering from pains in the chest, left shoulder, both legs and complaining of being sore throughout his body. After having sent the patient to the Marian Hospital and after having had X-rays made the doctor found a fracture of the left clavicle or collar bone and a fracture of the fourth rib which had caused the rib to puncture the right lung. There was also an abrasion on the plaintiff's thigh.
The plaintiff was placed in a clavicle brace to throw his shoulders back and hold the collar bone in position and he was obliged to wear this brace across his back for about ten weeks. His chest was taped for a period of six weeks and rest was prescribed. The fractures had healed but the doctor stated there was some limitation of movement around the shoulder joint and some rigidity of muscles in that area. The doctor did not recall that his patient had ever complained of any abnormal sensation or lack of use in the right hand. He stated, however, that the plaintiff was difficult to understand and the record reflects that plaintiff's command of English is very limited.
A Dr. Diehr testifying on behalf of the defendant stated that he had examined plaintiff in November of 1948 and that any fractures that the plaintiff may have suffered had healed without displacement. He testified that the patient complained of pain when his arm was raised to the side but that there was no detectable reason for this. Dr. Diehr also stated that the plaintiff complained of sensations in his right hand but that no cause for any disturbance there could be found.
The charge made by Dr. Moore for his professional services was $260 and the hospital bill was $100. Counsel for the defendant waived proof of damages to plaintiff's automobile and admitted that the damages to it would be 'between $350 and $400'.
Defendant maintains that 'inadequacy of damages standing alone in a tort case is insufficient grounds to justify a trial court in interfering with a jury's verdict.'
Because the trial judge participates in the trial of the case and may note and study the attentiveness and apparent understanding with which the jury reacts to the evidence and procedure, that court is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wessels v. Smith
...Service Co., 360 Mo. 761, 230 S.W.2d 698; State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Liddle, Mo.App., 193 S.W.2d 625; Gedville v. Mahacek, Mo.App., 231 S.W.2d 305; Aut v. St. Louis Public Service Co., 238 Mo.App. 1136, 194 S.W.2d As previously noted, the only issue on this appeal is the lega......
-
Brown v. Kansas City
...of fact and matters affecting the determination of issues of fact. De Maire v. Thompson, 359 Mo. 457, 222 S.W.2d 93; Gedville v. Mahacek, Mo.App., 231 S.W.2d 305. It is also true that an appellate court will be more liberal in sustaining an order granting a new trial than it might be in rev......